Sunday, December 16, 2007

And I can finally answer the question: what do you find after watching just about every movie you possibly can? Answer: Crispin Glover's cripple porn!

Okay, the night started off with Crispin Hellion Glover presenting his "Big Slide Show", where he read along from 8 books he wrote, with titles such as "Concrete Inspection" and "Rat-Catching". Funny stuff. Then the feature was part two in his "IT" trilogy. If you've seen the first, "What Is It?", don't worry this one is much easier to follow. It was written by Steven C. Stewart, a man born with cerebral palsy (who played the dueling demi-god auteur who killed Crispin Glover in "What Is It?"). It's based on his sexual fantasies, his obsession with long hair, his frustration at being trapped in his uncooperative body, and his desire to make a movie where he's the villain. So Glover directed a noir-surrealist film starring Stewart. Stewart seduces women, washes and brushes their hair, but the moment they even consider cutting their hair, he strangles them. Weird, hard to watch (but not as hard as "What Is It?"), but ultimately an affirmation of the dignity of a man with a horrible disease.

Incidentally, this was about 20 years in development, Glover took the job in "Charlie's Angels" to get the money to make this. 1 month after shooting wrapped, Stewart died, so this movie is his legacy.

I don't know what to say. It's probably better than I expected, but not as good as it could've been. It certainly looks impressive on the IMAX screen. Will Smith does a fine job acting alone for ~90% of the film. The empty, overgrown streets of Manhattan are impressive. But the Dark Seekers (are they more zombie or vampire?) are more noisy than scary. Perhaps I'm just jaded. It was okay.

Oh, yeah. And in IMAX it comes with a 7 minute clip from "Dark Knight" . Looks like it has the same strengths/weaknesses of "Batman Begins". It'll be a well made, well acted, and about as intelligent as a major studio action movie can be. But it'll sorely lack the sense of humor found in Tim Burton's "Batman". Which would be a real shame for a movie featuring the Joker.

Perhaps I'm getting old, but it's been a long time since a highly-regarded indie-hipster comedy (a la "Napoleon Dynamite") has actually made me laugh rather than annoy me. "Juno" made me laugh. Kudos to the movie, and double-kudos to Ellen Page. That is all.

Sunday, December 9, 2007

And I assume I should just read the book, because God knows there's way too much to follow in there.

Speaking of God, here's a note to all the people out there who are charging that the movie is part of an atheist plot: you're just proving once again that you believe in things that don't exist!

Seriously, for all I know the book is pure atheist agitprop. But the movie has more of an anti-authority message, and the constant talk of souls (in the movie, they're animals called "demons" and they accompany their people everywhere) pretty much makes it hard to take as an atheist story. The closest it gets is the anti-authoritarianism combined with a reverence for knowledge, truth, and freedom (hardly ideals that atheists have a monopoly on). Plus, for a supposed atheist story, there's a hell of a lot of "deus ex machina" rescues.

With that said, Dakota Blue Richards does a fine job in the lead (we're possibly in some sort of golden age of child actors), and eventually the end battle is pretty good. It just takes a long, confusing time to get rolling. But it leaves it primed for a good sequel, and one that I assume won't have all the burden of introducing so many characters. That could be very good.

Saturday, December 8, 2007

...ner movies. Everybody loves good ol' Bill Shatner. "Boston Legal" is one of the best shows on TV right now, allowing everyone to fall in love with Shatner all over again. Personally, I think he and James Spader are the best couple on TV right now.

But last night the good people at the Vortex Room had an all-night Shatnerthon. Rumor has it, it's the first of many. This is Shatner from the 70's, in the brilliant post-Trek pre-T. J. Hooker years. First an episode of Barnaby Jones where Shatner is the millionaire adventurer who fakes his own death to be with his mistress. Then "Impulse" aka "I Love to Kill", which starts with a little boy witnessing a man attacking his mother. The little boy kills him with a sword, then grows up to be Matt Stone (Shatner), who wears leisure suits, seduces women, cons them out of their life savings, and kills them. Evil, evil Shatner. And finally "Secrets of a Married Man". Shatner is a happily married aircraft designer, with a couple of fatal flaws. First, he's kinda bored with his sex life. Second, his commute for some reason takes him past dozens of prostitutes (even in broad daylight). Eventually, he gives in to temptation, sees a few pros, but always goes back to his wife and children committed to being a better husband and father. That is, until he runs into high class hooker Cybill Shepherd (back when that meant something), who scams him big time. Eventually her pimp comes looking for $5,000 (apparently, back when that meant something, too) and things get complicated.

In between, fabulous Shatner clips and music, including of course his famous "Rocket Man" performance. Rumor has it this is the first of multiple Shatnerthons the Vortex is planning. I'll keep you loyal readers informed. In the mean time, next Friday night they'll show "Omega Man" to "celebrate" the release of Will Smith's "I am Legend".

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

I'd actually meant to see it for a while, because Seinfeld is pretty funny, but other things just took priority.

I fully expected it to strain my patience for corny bee jokes ("A perfect report card--all B's!" is a real groaner), but quite a few bits about the fast-paced all-work bee lifestyle were pretty clever. The celebrity cameos by Sting and Ray Liotta were kinda cool, but the Larry King bit was absolutely inspired! But most of all I was surprised by how darn Jewish it was. Of course Seinfeld's Jewish, and a lot of that comes through in his comedy anyway. And the goyim probably wouldn't even pay attention to lines about bee-ish humor ("with what we've gone through, if we didn't laugh we'd cry") or concerns about whether his girlfriend is bee-ish. But it's there, it's really Jewish, and I loved it. Of course, you shouldn't read too many Jewish parallels into it, or you'll get an Auschwitz vibe from the scenes of the honey farms, and I don't think that was intended. But all in all (and I didn't think this competition would ever exist) I think it beats out Woody Allen in "Antz" and the most Jewish computer-animated movie about insects ever. Now that would be a double feature--maybe the kids program at a Jewish Film Festival?

Saturday, December 1, 2007

It was all part of my plan. One of my co-workers (in fact, my cube-mate) is leaving at the end of the year. So we left work early to catch an IMAX movie. Oddly enough, seeing a movie as part of a goodbye party was not my idea--at least not entirely. I just happened to mention how awesome IMAX movies are, and the person in charge of planning it ran with it. Of course, once it was a suggestion, I certainly helped push it along. Here's my whole group (except for the picture taker) in 3-D glasses:

As for the movie itself, it's big, loud, technically impressive, and a good amount of fun. All the scenes are beautifully rendered, and if nothing else it's fun to look at. It takes a lot of liberties with the original poem (as best as I can remember it, I should re-read it), but when you have to balance "strict fidelity to classic literature" vs. "more naked Angelina Jolie"...well, you know what wins. It also takes a lot of liberties with the boundaries of PG-13 (this really should be an R, I think the MPAA was confused because it's a cartoon). As far as the look, the sets and monsters are more impressive than the characters. Technology has come a long was since "Final Fantasy: the Spirits Within", but we're still in the Uncanny Valley.

Anyway, when we got out it was about 5 pm, and the sun had just gone down. So I was free to fall off the apple cart, as it were. We had dinner reservations at Stacey's at Waterford. It's famous for being Scott "Dilbert" Adams' restaurant. He co-owns it and writes jokes on the menus. This was my first time at either of their two locations, but it's a fairly high-class but casual, fun establishment with some great food. And they take pride in being able to make any changes to any dish to satisfy you (e.g., take meat out for vegetarians, etc.) I know I was pretty much starving, but the food was delicious. I started with the complimentary bread, of course. Nothing special but nice and soft with a good crisp crust. Then we got a couple orders of fried calamari for an appetizer--always a good thing. Then I had the house salad, which was also good (although next time I'd ask for it with a little less dressing). And finally the main course. I ordered barbecued boneless beef short ribs, which came with steamed veggies and mashed potatoes. The ribs were as tender as the mashed potatoes. The phrase "melts in your mouth" is tossed around too often these days...well, you get the idea. It was really, really, really good. And for any veggies out there, they do have veggie options. After all, Scott Adams is a vegetarian.

Anyway, my stomach had shrunk enough at that point that just that sort of average sized meal put me into a good food coma. Or maybe it was the two glasses of Chianti (nice, a little sweet for my tastes) and the martini (perfect). Luckily I planned ahead and had a ride home. Where it was still relatively early (~8 pm), but I just laid down on my couch, watched dumb TV, and sat in stomach-stretching agony/ecstasy (there should be a word for that combo..."agstasy"?) until I crawled off to bed. This morning, I was back up to 214 lbs. I was that full on only 2 lbs. of food? Excellent!

Friday, November 30, 2007

The final day! Just about 4 hours left before I can eat all I want again!

Today's weigh-in: 212 lbs. I lost 10 lbs in 5 days. Wow! I fully expect to gain at least half of that back within a week.

I survived the temptation of free donut Friday at work, and some meddlesome co-worker who gave me a stack of In-N-Out coupons that expire today. I'm practically in the clear.

Today's apple: Ambrosia. A very sweet, and very fragrant apple (I bought this a week ago in preparation, and smelling this apple has been a nice pasttime when the hunger pangs get too loud). Not as crisp as a Granny Smith or a Pink Lady, but not mealy and much better than a Golden Delicious or Rome. In fact, that's my order for best to worst: Granny Smith, Pink Lady, Ambrosia, Golden Delicious, Rome.

Here's the pic, next to my skull mug...which I guess symbolizes the death of the apple project.

Thursday, November 29, 2007

Today's apple, after recommendations from co-workers and Brian's comments, I chose a Pink Lady. I have to tell you, once I was at the store the much bigger Fuji apples (the biggest currently at the Raley's in Fremont) were tempting, but I had a plan and I stuck to it.

The Pink Lady is a delicious apple. Nearly as hard and crisp as a Granny Smith, but sweeter (though still a little tart, which I like). It was so delicious, I ate it core and all. Here's what it looked like before I ate it:

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Anyway, I'm feeling slightly weak, with a slight loss of fine motor control, particularly when walking. But the effect feels less than having a beer.

Today's apple is one I've never tried before: a Red Rome (not to be confused with "redrum"). Pleasantly sweet, slightly tart. But also soft and kinda mealy (nothing like a good ol' Granny Smith). I don't think I'll be trying the Rome again any time soon. Unless I'm in Rome and have to do as the Romans do.

In other weight-loss news, there's apparently a new study out claiming that sitting down all but shots off a key enzyme responsible for burning fat. So even if you exercise and eat well, if you sit a lot when you're not exercising (like for your job or at home), you won't burn much fat. This is interesting to me for a couple of reasons. First, I sit in front of a computer a lot at work. Second, my primary form of recreation is sitting and watching movies. I always rationalized that I actually lose weight watching movies because so often I skip meals to see a movie (yes, that is true), and I would mock fatasses like Harry Knowles or Roger Ebert (from a few years back), saying they couldn't really like movies that much if they obviously spent a lot of time eating, too. Well, looks like skipping meals to watch movies doesn't actually help burn fat. I guess I'll have to eat my words--but not until Friday when I can eat something other than an apple.

And there are some scares, but mostly I was put off by the disparity between the comically cheesy monsters and the deadly serious (not good, just really serious) acting. This could have been good, campy fun. And even if the acting were great and the monsters were more than cheesy CGI creations, the story would still be ludicrous to the point where it doesn't aspire to more than good, campy fun.

I suppose I could say something about the will to survive and how when people are scared to death they'll follow any fool who says he or she can talk to God, no matter how crazy they are (even when she starts calling for human sacrifices). And I suppose I could try to tie that idea into current events. But really, I just wished the whole movie was as cheesy as the monsters.

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Today I'm a little busy and didn't have much time for lunch. Luckily I can eat an apple quickly. I decided to not even go to the cafeteria, but eat my apple outside under the clear blue Milpitas skies and 60°F weather. Ahhh, California.

Today's apple is a Golden Delicious. Sweeter and softer than a Granny Smith, but still a fine apple:

Monday, November 26, 2007

Announcing the sure-to-be-short-lived Apple Project. This is inspired by Christian Bale's preparation in The Machinist, where he became positively skeletal by eating no more than an apple and a can of tuna a day. It's also inspired by the fact that I need to lose some freakin' weight. And it's inspired by the fact that I don't really care for canned tuna.

Anyway, here are the rules:

I may drink as much water as I like

I may also drink tea, but I can't put any sweetener in it

I may eat one apple a day

I may not eat anything else

It started last night (Sunday, 11/25/07) at sundown

It ends Friday night at sundown (ummm...because I have a Friday night party to go to--food is too damn social!)

I will try to remember to track my weight during this. At the start, this morning, my weight was 222 lbs. If nothing else, I will report my weight at the end. But I should stress this isn't really about losing weight, it's about testing my endurance in a really stupid way. An epic battle of man vs. his own dumb-ass idea.

In any case, it's day 1 and the apple of the day is the Granny Smith. Really a staple of my childhood and my diet today. Tart, crisp, and hard. Many people consider this a baking apple, too sour to eat directly. I disagree, and if you have a taste for Granny Smith, all other apples are too sweet and cloying. That won't keep me from sampling other apples over the week, but I wanted to start with the one I love.

Hey, if I hold the apple like this, it's bigger than my friend Gerry's head. There's no way I'll be able to eat that!

Saturday, November 24, 2007

Yeah, it's a semi-biopic about Bob Dylan in which 6 actors play various parts of his personality, including Cate Blanchett (my favorite of the six) and black child actor Marcus Carl Franklin. Okay, I've kinda seen the same thing in Todd Solondz's "Palindromes" where he had 7 actors playing a little girl. None of them are actually named Bob Dylan (the only time he's mentioned by name is a note during the credits saying the movie is inspired by his life and music).

If this weren't about Bob Dylan--and possibly if this weren't directed by Todd Haynes--this could come across as a pretentious film school experiment. As it is, it embraces the chaos inherent in any fully realized character, and especially in Dylan. The traditional biopic doesn't really capture who any person really is, it captures the small sample of what the subject means to the people who care about him. In this case, the movie is doing one of two things. Maybe it's trying to bypass that tradition in favor of a truer representation, and showcasing how Bob Dylan (like any truly interesting person) is so complicated that he can't be summed up with one performance. Or maybe it is sticking to the premise that biopics can't really show the subject as much as what the subject means to the people who care about him--but Bob Dylan just means too many different things to too many people.

Either way it's a form-breaking challenge, and hardcore Dylan fans could get much more out of repeated viewings. Or you can just groove to a couple hours of Dylan music with semi-biographical stories set to it. If nothing else, the scene where he goes electric (played by Cate Blanchett) is one of the fucking coolest things I've seen in a while.

And it's a well-crafted, well-acted, intriguing thriller about two brothers in dire financial straits who hatch a plan to rob their parents' jewelry store. The story unfolds in various flashbacks from different perspectives as things go very, very bad. This movie is very, very mean--not many redeemable characters, if there are any at all.

But I'd rather talk about Marisa Tomei getting naked. I just wonder what happened to her since 1998 when she used a very obvious body double in "The Slums of Beverly Hills". Now she opens the movie by getting banged doggy-style by Philip Seymour Hoffman (who should not be getting naked on screen--shudder). Come to think of it, she got topless in "Factotum" two years ago, too. Anyway, I have no comment, just feel free to speculate away.

Thursday, November 22, 2007

I know, it's Thanksgiving and I should be with family and/or friends, watching football, drinking beer, and eating way too much. But crack addicts don't take a day off just because it's a holiday (they're like farmers), and neither do I. Besides, I'm going to a friend's place in a little bit.

Anyway, "No Country for Old Men" is an excellent movie, just like all the critics have been saying. The Coen Brothers are officially forgiven for "Ladykillers" (if I were more cynical, I'd also forgive them for "Intolerable Cruelty", but I actually liked that movie a lot even though the critics and Coen fans didn't). No need to rehash the plot, you can read about it anywhere. It's bloody. It's deliberately paced to the point that the tension gets unbearable--and then it breaks. But the tension transcends the characters (who are just as rich and idiosyncratic as befits a Coen Bros. movie), and becomes a tension between heartfelt characters (even Javier Bardem's psychotic killer has a code of ethics and just a hint of pathos) and a completely heartless universe. As much as Tommy Lee Jone's sheriff believes that crime is much worse these days, the cold fact is that there's always been horrible crimes committed by horrible people, and the universe doesn't care. And that's what the movie is about. If I could sum it up in one sentence, it's this: Even if everyone in the universe cares about you, the universe itself still doesn't.

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

And it was...okay. Would've been a lot better if it didn't have Dane Cook. In fairness, he's not actually terrible in this movie, I'm just kinda annoyed at the whole fact that he exists. Sorry. But the rest of the extensive ensemble cast is fine, although they're sorta in the background of the story of Steve Carell and Juliette Binoche.... Okay, what the hell, not only can Dane Cook brag he's been in a movie with the esteemed and beautiful Juliette Binoche, but Ms. Binoche has to admit she's been in a movie with Dane Cook. Both of those facts are very, very, wrong!

Anyway, the premise--Steve Carell plays Dan, an advice columnist who makes bad decisions in his own life--has been done, and this doesn't exactly bring anything new. But it's charming enough and generally works. The most remarkable element is his huge extended family--the reason that no one but Carell, Binoche, and Cook (argh!) gets enough screen time. Carell plays a widower with 3 daughters, two old enough that he just can't do right by them. They take the traditional family trip to the Rhode Island vacation house that his parents (John Mahoney and Dianne Wiest) run. Of course, all his siblings (Cook plays his brother Mitch), nieces, and nephews are there, too. He meets and falls for Anne-Marie (Binoche) before he knows that she's already seeing Mitch. And it becomes a very uncomfortable vacation, until finally there's a big confrontation, and he eventually learns to follow his heart. The end. As I said, nothing new, but it works and it's charming.

Monday, November 19, 2007

And with an audience of a whopping 4 people (seriously, the biggest audience I saw at any of the screenings this year), After Dark 2007 comes to an ignominious end. Some of the films were actually pretty good ("Tooth and Nail", "Borderland", "Mulberry Street), unfortunately not these last two.

First up was a gloriously cheesy flick (which at least had the self-recognition to call itself a "flick", not a film) "Nightmare Man". Newlyweds get a mask representing a god of fertility, as artwork and...inspiration. Unfortunately it's hideously ugly and the wife starts having nightmares about it. Or maybe she's possessed. Cut forward in time, and they're on their way to have her committed to a mental institution. They run out of gas, the husband goes to get some, she stays in the car, and the Nightmare Man attacks. Then some stuff happens, and I won't spoil it. The story is cheesy, the acting is bad, but at least there's plenty of T&A.

And finally, there was "Crazy Eights", a movie with pretty much no T&A, despite starring Traci Lords (I know, apparently after she got old enough that it was legal for her to be naked on screen, she stopped doing it). Six old childhood friends start having strange nightmares. When they get together for a mutual friend's funeral, his will contains a map that sends them to an old trunk that's a forgotten time capsule from their childhood. This isn't really a spoiler, since it's set up in the opening credits, but as children they were committed to an institution that did psychological experiments on them. The trunk unlocks old childhood trauma, and a very literal ghost of the past (hint--the title is "Crazy Eights". There are six of them, plus one recently dead friend...I wonder who the eighth is?) It's actually not that bad, surprisingly competent acting, some good creepy buildup, and a few effective scares. Just nothing special.

Sunday, November 18, 2007

A beautiful way to end their run as my team. They used to be my San Jose Earthquakes, but we're cruelly stolen from me two years ago (fuck you, AEG!) I still love the guys, I'm still a fan of DeRo, Onstad, Ching (although he missed the game with injury) and the rest. But next year, I'll have the new San Jose Earthquakes, and I'll finally have to stop cheering for those guys and cheer for my expansion team. It'll be a little weird the first time Houston comes back to play in San Jose.

In other news, for you sports fans wondering want happened to the curse haunting the Red Sox, well apparently it got transferred to the New England Revolution, who are now losers of 4 of the last 6 MLS cups. Ouch!

And it's pretty good, a thriller in which the lawyer is actually the hero. Interesting that the previews always made it seem like Michael Clayton (George Clooney) is a real badass fixer--like Mr. Wolf in "Pulp Fiction" (oooh, a movie just about him could be awesome!) But pretty quickly in the movie it's explicitly stated that he's no miracle worker. His skill is he knows people who can help you anywhere, but he can't even make a simple hit-and-run go away (because, well...the guy's guilty and in that situation the best you can do is get a good trial lawyer. He knows several good ones in the area, but that's all he can do). In fact, rather than the badass who controls everything, Michael Clayton is a guy who has been pretty nearly beaten by life. He lost all his money on a restaurant, he has a gambling problem, and he gave up a promising trial career with hopes of partnerhood because the firm wants him to be a fixer. To make matters worse, his good friend Arthur Edens (Tom Wilkinson) has gone off his meds and stripped naked during a deposition (don't worry, there's no actual naked Tom Wilkinson on screen), just before he's supposed to go to trial defending U/North a fertilizer/pesticide company facing a class-action lawsuit for poisoning thousands of small farmers.

And yeah, there's some pretty explicit sex in it. But it's a shame that's getting all the buzz, because it's actually a pretty compelling espionage thriller about a band of resistance fighters opposing the collaborationist government during the Japanese occupation in 1942. Specifically, Wang Jiazhi (Wei Tang) tries to seduce a government official Mr. Yee (Tony Leung), spy on him, and eventually lure him into position for assassination. But the seduction is a little too real for everyone, and that's where all the explicit sex comes in.

In many ways, it's a Pacific Theater companion piece to the also excellent "Black Book" (and both feature quite a bit of sex).

Saturday, November 17, 2007

Performed by the Actors Ensemble of Berkeley. Ummm...their last show is tonight. Anyway, I'd never seen the original stage version, but the movie adaptation starring Tim Roth and Gary Oldman in the title roles (although I forget which is which--but then, so do they) is one of my favorite movies ever. So I knew most of the lines by heart already, and I totally love their riffing on philosophical matters and the meaning of life. Particularly their lives as characters in Hamlet whose roles are so minor their deaths aren't even on stage. In this play, their the main characters but don't really exist before or after (well, especially after, seeing as they're dead). It's an existential comedy where they wait and discuss their meaning (and identities) while waiting for the "important" characters to come on stage so they can...be completely impotent to change anything.

Anyway, as I said I've seen the movie many, many times, but the movie never really gave the sense of claustrophobia the stage version does. In the movie, they wander all over Elsinore and run into everyone. On stage, they mostly stay in one room (there are three acts, on their way to Elsinore, in Elsinore, and on a boat to England) and wait for people to come by, and their impatience and stir-craziness is far more apparent. Somehow that doesn't work as well in the movie when they're wandering all over the place.

And finally, as for this stage production. Well, it's local theater so some of it's pretty amateur. But the leads were great, and the jokes were funny. Oh yeah, and one of the running gags is that when the major players from Hamlet come on stage, they're actually speaking Shakespeare's lines, and it's supposed to be obtuse and confusing to them. Well, pretty much none of the actors were up for Shakespeare, except for the guy who played Horatio and ended the play. Okay, he's actually a friend of mine, and the reason I went up to Berkeley to see it in the first place. But the friends I went with agreed that of the Shakespearean lines, he was the one who delivered his line best.

Friday, November 16, 2007

And I don't know how to describe it, but there's something in the editing, cinematography, soundtrack, etc. that feels just like a 70's drama. But it's a horror movie, set in New York, about rats. Imagine all the rats in New York. Now imagine that for some unexplained reason the rats become extra aggressive and the victims of rat bites turn into rat-zombies. That's this movie. It's short in a very gritty manner, and starts with way too many characters, so it takes a bit of time to get going. But once it does it's really cool.

Okay, that's all I've got to say now. And now I'm finally caught up with all the movies I've seen this year. Time to go watch some more.

And it was pretty good. I'm faced with the odd prospect of no longer being able to treat Ben Affleck like a total joke. Last year he proved he still has acting chops playing George Reeves in "Hollywoodland", and now he's actually directed a tight, interesting, well-acted thriller. WTF?

Anyway, in a nutshell Casey Affleck (Ben's brother, and supporting player in Ocean's 11 through 13) is a small-time P.I. hired to investigate a missing little girl. The odd thing is the aunt hires him because the mom is an idiot druggie who's an unfit mother and doesn't seem to care anyway (although that's dismissed as her kind of grieving). Well, things go wrong, but life goes on, until little clues pop up telling him he might have had it wrong all along. It's very deliberately paced, and features outstanding supporting work by Morgan Freeman, Ed Harris, and Titus Welliver (sporting a gigantic mustache).

Also, since every conversation I've had with anyone else who has seen it has involved the ending. I'll try to do this without any spoilers. Specifically, it involves what Casey Affleck does at the end. I'm not saying I agree with it, but it makes perfect sense with his tortured, guilt-ridden, but still idealistic character.

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Double wow, there's was actually nobody else in the theater for these screenings. That's sad.

Anyway, first up was a post-apocalypse movie, "Tooth and Nail", again starring Rider Strong (from "Borderland", also in this series). He's part of a band of survivors. The apocalypse, as explained in an opening voice-over, was actually pretty low-key. No plague, no war, we just ran out of gas much faster than expected and society collapsed (a sign in the beginning advertises gas for >$200 a gallon. A little extreme, but the premise is that without gas you couldn't transport other fuels, food, supplies, etc. to where they could be useful...hence collapse). His band is holed up in a hospital (although none are doctors) surviving on emergency rations. On an expedition, they come across a crazy looking guy (Vinnie Jones) attacking a couple. They fight him off and the girl survives. They take her back to the hospital where she explains that the Vinnie Jones character is part of a gang of cannibals. And then the cannibals attack. This movie actually does a great job of building up the tension of waiting for the attack. The attacks themselves are well done, including the work of Michael Madsen. There are a couple of twists at the end that are somewhat telegraphed and have a little too much "what do you mean" expository dialog. The first twist I got maybe a few minutes before the characters. The second I got immediately when it was conceived, rendering the flashback kinda useless and a little insulting. But still, one of the better movies in this series. Actually, having seen all but two now, this puts Rider Strong in the two best movies so far.

Next up was "Lake Dead", a fairly well done but pretty formulaic teens-in-trouble at a vacation spot flick. It starts with an old man running out on his wife and the lakeside hotel they own. He makes some obscure statements about how their family is evil and may God forgive him. On the way out of town, he's stopped by the sheriff who promptly guns him down. Next we learn he's a grandfather and has left the lake house to his three granddaughters. We also learn the family name is Lake, making the lake house an easy pun. We also find out that the granddaughters never knew about him because their father never told them. Also, their father's an alcoholic and they all hate him. But when he learns they inherited the hotel, he begs them each not to go. But of course they do, and bring their horny, drunk, drug-using friends with them. Kill-larity ensues. Again, it's not a bad flick, and many of the scenes are very well done. It's just nothing new.

Last Sunday was the final weekend of the San Jose Jewish Film Festival. Since I'm behind in my updates, I'll just jump right in.

First up was a fascinating and tragic documentary, "Sentenced to Marriage". In Israel, marriage--and especially divorce--between Jews is controlled by rabbinic courts, not civil court. As a result, divorces must be in accordance with Torah law. In a nutshell, this means that the husband must write up a document of divorce and give it to the wife. If he doesn't write up the document (or if she doesn't accept it), they are not divorced. Furthermore, children born of a married woman who are fathered by someone other than her husband are banned from Judaism for 10 generations (their descendants can't even convert, but oddly children of an unmarried woman are just fine. Also, men can have multiple wives, although that's frowned on). If the husband refuses to divorce, the ancient tradition was to beat the crap out of him until he did. Sadly, that's no longer the case, and unhappy wives have only the court, which can be a traumatizing, drawn-out process. 3,000 years ago, these rules might've made sense (forcing a man to draw up a document of divorce at a time when few people were literate actually protected the wife from being thrown out), but nowadays there are potential problems. This movie follows three unhappy wives whose respective husbands refuse to divorce them (even as he has children by another woman). It's a pretty tragic situation. There was a speaker afterwards, NitzhiaShaked, an Israeli lawyer who explained the marriage laws in more detail including the historic context (the movie made them just seem barbaric) and shed some light on how rare these cases were. It was very interesting. Here's a blurry picture of her:

Next up was a German monologue, "Just an Ordinary Jew". Ben Becker (“Gloomy Sunday”) stars as a Jewish German journalist (how's that for alliteration?) who receives a letter forwarded to him from the local Jewish community center. A social studies teacher is teaching about Judaism, and wanted the class to meet a Jew. Since he didn't know any himself, he sent an invitation to the Jewish community center, who asked him since he's a journalist and hence likes to tell stories. Well, he's at best uncomfortable (more like appalled), and sits down to write a polite letter declining the offer. But he has trouble crafting the letter, and in the solitude of his home he launches into an extended and scathing monologue on what it means to be a Jew in Germany today--much of which is equally applicable in any predominantly gentile country. It's pretty strange to see a 90 minute monologue as a movie (at least, now that Spalding Gray is dead), but about 20 minutes in when I came to terms with the fact that there would be no action, it got pretty good. I could totally see this as a stage performance, and I think it would work very well.

Next up was an even more intense movie, this one from Canada (I know, quiet northern neighbor my ass!). "Steel Toes" stars David Straithairn as Danny Dunkleman, a liberal Jewish lawyer and Andrew Walker as his client Mike Downey, a neo-nazi skinhead who kicked a Pakistani man to death with his steel-toed shoes. Obviously it's more than a little awkward. In fact, it's really fucking tense. In their first meeting, the skinhead says that "in a perfect world, I'd have you killed. In this world, you're my only hope". It's that attitude, and Danny's memory of his father teaching him to fight against that hate in both himself and others, that drives Danny. He quickly realizes that unless he can make Mike show remorse, he has no chance, and so that becomes Danny's goal. Meanwhile at home and at work it's creating tension, as he's mocked as "super liberal" and his wife threatens to leave him unless he spends a little less time with the skinhead and more time with his family. Over the months leading up to the trial, Danny works constantly to break down Mike, and explore the horrible influences of racism. It's not always easy to watch, but the acting is incredible. In fact, if this were handled with anything less than expert care on all counts, it would become unwatchable. As it is, it's intense.

And finally, the last movie on the night, was "Sweet Mud", the Israeli Academy Award winner for best picture. I missed this when it played at the SF Jewfest, but I told myself back then in August that it'll almost certainly come to San Jose, and I was right. It's a wonderfully weird coming of age story set on a dysfunctional kibbutz in the 70's. Dvir is 12 years old, the year when you study for you Bar Mitzvah. His mom is recently out of a sanatorium, his dad is dead, and he lives in the communal children's house on the kibbutz. It opens with Dvir witnessing kibbutz leader Avraham feeding the calves in the barn, including one feeding that becomes sort of unorthodox--in a bestiality sort of way (um...gross!) Well, that's the kind of kibbutz this is, although it doesn't quite get that perverse the rest of the way. When Dvir's mom's boyfriend (and Swiss Judo champion...about 30 years ago) comes to visit, at first Dvir is cautious but quickly he becomes a real and loving father figure. That is, until he defends Dvir--breaking Avraham's arm in the process--and gets kicked out of the kibbutz. The central conflict is Dvir trying to get them back together. But there's also a little girl as a love interest for Dvir, and older brother in the army, and a whole dysfunctional gang of characters. But in the end, it's a sweet story of growing up and escaping your upbringing.

And that was SJ Jewfest for me. There's one more movie, a Wednesday night screening of "Black Book", but I've already seen it so I'll skip it (although it is a fantastic movie).

Monday, November 12, 2007

I've been meaning to do that for a few years, and this time I finally had the drive to catch at least one day in San Jose (it continues through next weekend). I caught three films last Saturday, and here they are:

First up was a documentary co-presented by my beloved San Jose Earthquakes. "Fútbol, elnacimientodeunapasión" ("Footbal--the Birth of a Passion") is a PBS-style documentary using re-enactment to tell the history of all games that were played with a round ball--leading up to modern football (soccer). Playing games with a spheroid goes way back in many cultures--Aztecs and Druids independently used it to worship the sun god. Romans used a violent ball game to train their troops. The Japanese invented a ball game that looks a lot like hackey sack but with a big ball as a form of peaceful meditation. But the roots of the modern game lie in the English school system. Various forms of ball games (often called "the dribbling game") were played on campuses. One fateful day, a player at Rugby school, tired of constantly being beaten, made the fatal decision to pick up the ball and run it into the goal. This was blatantly illegal in the dribbling game (hands were allowed to stop the ball, but not to advance it), but it soon became "Rugby rules". Of course, it was difficult for different schools to play each other, with so many variations of the rules, so representatives from all the schools met (in a pub) to standardize the rules. In a vote, they rejected the more physical Rugby rules in favor of the Cambridge rules (which allowed stopping the ball with the hands but not advancing it, didn't have a goalie, but were the first to allow a rope across the goalposts as a height limit on the goal). Hence a schism formed between the Rugby rules (or "rugby" or "rugger") and the Football Association rules (or "soccer", shortened nickname for Association). Chances are if I weren't a soccer fan already, I'd get pretty tired of this movie and the constant low-budget historical re-enactments. But as it is I'm a fan and this movie was pretty interesting. If nothing else, I at least know why we call it soccer.

Next up we stayed with the sports motif but moved from soccer (a game I like) to boxing (which I find kinda tough to watch). "J. C. Chávez" (I assume the initials are a subtle hint) is a documentary about Mexican boxing legend Julio Cesar Chávez, and the directorial debut of actor Diego Luna ("Y tumamátambién"). Diego is obviously a big fan of Chávez, as is (to judge from the movie) pretty much every Mexican who's every seen a boxing match. Still, he's not afraid to show Chávez in a somewhat unfavorable light, from his political foibles and his drawn out farewell tour that jumps between brilliant and pathetic (of course, he's just fighting palookas for that tour). And his casual racism against PuertoRicans seemed odd. But all in all, he's a charismatic character who brought himself up from poverty (his first goal was to be able to buy a house for his family), and although I'm not a boxing fan, this is still a well made movie and I can appreciate that.

And finally, "MalosHabitos" ("Bad Habits") is a movie about dysfunctional relationships. In particular, dysfunctional relationships with food. I don't think I've seen a movie that can inspire so much mouth-watering hunger in one instance, and retching revulsion the next. It all takes place during possibly the biggest extended rainstorm Baja California has ever seen, and features a really messed up cast. There's an anorexic woman, her kinda pudgy daughter, and her husband--an architect who teaches at the local school and sleeps with one of his students (and yeah, food's involved there, too). The school is Catholic, and the one of the nuns is a wonderful chef who sells her treats to raise funds for the church--that's the mouth-watering part. Another nun is obsessed with taking on punishments to bring about God's good graces. First she fasts or drinks straight vinegar in order to help her aunt who's in the hospital. When her aunt actually recovers, she takes it up a notch to end the rainstorm (after seeing TV images of the victims of the flooding) and starts eating slop straight from the garbage--that's the retching part. At times humorous, but mostly sad. It kind of gives you emotional whiplash. But it's very well done.

And that was me at the Latino Film Festival. Perhaps I'll have time to see a little more this weekend. But if not here's looking to next year.

Saturday, November 10, 2007

Last year a new horror event made its debut. The After Dark Horrorfest is an intriguing idea--a handful of independent horror films get shown in mainstream theaters around the country for one weekend. In 2006 it was advertised as "8 Films to Die For", which made no sense because there were 9 films (apparently they added "Snoop Dogg's Hood of Horror" at the last minute) and played for one weekend in early November. This year it actually is 8 films, and they're spread out over a full week (including both weekends).

Last year, despite a huge ad blitz online (and as far as I saw, only online), attendance, at least at the theaters I went to, was pretty low. Personally, I think the kind of audience that sees their online ads is more likely to download pirated versions of their movies than to actually go out to a movie. But that's neither here nor there, apparently they decided they were successful enough to expand (at least in days, if not in number of films), and perhaps they're making their money on the DVD releases of their movies. I doubt they made anything on their other regular theatrical release, the universally reviled "Captivity" (in fairness, I didn't see it and therefore can't comment). Basically, they seem to be a lot more hype than execution. On the other hand, I've seen film festivals grow from next to nothing to big events, so anything's possible, as word gets out--depending on what that word is.

Anyway, I only mention the attendance woes just as a segue into my first night at this years festival, where I went to my local Fremont Cinedome and was one of only 3 people in the theater (I did talk a bit to the two kids who were also there, and they planned to go back and see everything over the weekend. I'm going to have to see most of it during the week or next weekend).

So the first movie was a British flick produced by SFX monster wizard Stan Winston, "The Deaths of Ian Stone". It starts with Ian Stone having a very bad day. His winning goal in a hockey match is called off, despite the clock stopping with 2 seconds left. Then on his way home, just in front of railroad tracks, he sees a figure slumped over in front of the tracks. He tries to call 999 (equivalent of 911, I assume), but there's no cell signal. He looks again and the man is gone. Then he's attacked by a giant black winged shadow monster and thrown in front of the train and dies. Then he wakes up apparently several years later in a boring office job. And the cycle starts again. A very promising, mysterious start, but unfortunately nothing else in the movie is as interesting as the mystery presented in the first 10 minutes. Clues trickle out via clunky exposition about creatures who live alongside humans but in a different plane. The exposition becomes more and more explicit, leaving absolutely no mystery by the end. There's one semi-big surprise, and then it devolves into a rather sappy moral. It's pretty close to a good movie. The monsters of course look cool and appropriately scary, the acting is fine. If they just cut out a few lines of exposition and let the audience figure out some things for themselves (trust me, they can) it would be much better.

And the second was an appropriately nasty Mexican-American movie based on an allegedly true story of a drug running gang who believed that demonic rituals involving human sacrifice would make them invisible while smuggling drugs. American college kids go to Mexico on break and of course it becomes a teens-in-trouble flick. Rider Strong ("Boy Meets World", "Cabin Fever"), Brian Presley, and Jake Muxworthy play the teens in trouble. Sean Astin shows up as a really filthy, mean thug working for the gang (looking nothing like Sam Gamgee). Marco Bacuzzi also makes a really bad-ass looking gangster, and DamiánAlcázar does a great job as the Mexican cop who tries to rescue the victims. But really, the movie hangs (no pun intended) on the torture and sadism. And on the premise that it's based on reality. I don't really want to believe it really happened, but it makes the movie about 100 times more powerful, and saves it from just being "torture porn". One final note--I hate the term "torture porn" almost as much as I hate the actual sub-genre. And I'm not going to go on a rant here. I'll just say that while "Borderland" has torture scenes, it's not torture porn. It has a social conscience, it's not exploitative, and it looks at the torture with appropriate disgust and the victims with appropriate sympathy/outrage.

Friday, November 9, 2007

Ah, I love the Thrillpeddlers, but I've been too busy to catch their Shocktoberfest show this year. I finally rectified that last night, and I can tell all my loyal SF area readers that you should go see it before it's too late. It plays this weekend and next, just a few shows left (and those final shows come with free posters!)

Anyway, it's a Grand Guignol stage show, meaning short bloody dramas and sex farces (or combinations of the two--my favorite!) The show opens with a translation/adaptation of a classic from the actual Théâtredu Grand-Guignol, "The Maker of Monsters". A Circus employs an doctor/artist to create interesting animals for their side show--like a dog that he's turned into a sea creature, or a spinning "Dervish Duck". The competition tries to steal him away, and bloody intrigue ensues.

This segued into a modern vignette, "Google: Fetish". 3 short scenes depicting popular fetishes, along with the number of results you get if you googled them. Go ahead and try googling "fart fetish", "ball-busting", or "forced feminization"--I dare you. I don't know if the fetishes are always the same, or if they change it up every night. I'll have to go back to see.

Then intermission, meaning time for another beer (oh yeah, I had a few before it started). Intermission also featured some fun with their player piano, including the oddly post-modern irony of a live woman sing "Material Girl" to a puppet. And then back to the show.

"The Colossus" is a bloody, gory tale of art and tragedy. An artist is commissioned to build a giant statue (including an excellent description of the lost wax casting technique). An accident causes the death of his daughter--his pride and joy (his wife, her mother died in childbirth). He becomes sullen, despondent, destroys his wax statue and starts on a new, deadly project.

And finally, it all ended with "The Bloody Con", a bloody comedy about a group of deranged prison inmates who are forced to undergo medical experimentation. It all ends with lights out glow-in-the-dark thrills.

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Introducing a new feature, for my readers who want to stay in the know, don't do the RSS feed thing, and don't have time to check the site every day. Get jasonwatchesmovies posts directly in your e-mail inbox by joining my google group. Just go to http://groups.google.com/group/jasonwatchesmovies?hl=en and join.

I'm still working on the settings and making sure it all works right. If I did this correctly, it's announcement-only, meaning I'm the only one who can post. Essentially, it's just a simple e-mail list. Hope this works.

Tuesday, November 6, 2007

Indiefest invited me to a special sneak preview of Brian De Palma's new anti-war film, "Redacted". Although this seems to be the season of anti-war films, this is actually the first I've seen. I missed "In the Valley of Elah", and haven't seen "Rendition" yet. "Lions for Lambs" comes out Friday, and I'll try to see it eventually. So this is the first, and my guess, without having seen any others, it will be the most controversial.

It's based on an incident in which a squad of American soldiers raped a 15 year old girl in Samarra and murdered her family. The crime was later covered up in the official US Army investigation (hence the title). It's told in a series of video journals, employing a range of styles from security cameras to home movies to news reports to a French documentary to videos posted on the web. This accomplishes a duel purpose--first to emphasize how important non-traditional sources are for uncovering the truth, second it let's De Palma play with different styles. And that's somewhat to the film's detriment. Especially early on, before it gets gross, it is a little too playful. More importantly, De Palma has such a strong visual eye that he's incapable of letting the amateur footage look amateur. Even the security camera footage is well framed and has clear audio. I sorta feel like a less polished filmmaker could actually do a more convincing job with this concept.

However, that's a very minor, niggling point compared to the power of the film. It is raw, tense, and disturbing. And most importantly (and what I predict will make it the most controversial war picture this season) is that it does not portray our troops as heroes. Even the soldiers who oppose the crime are too weak to stop it. It even makes a joke about "supporting the troops" during the rape scene. And unless I'm mistaken, one of the soldiers had an Oscar with a miniature M-16 and helmet. Yeah, this isn't a subtle movie--one of the villains is a big fat dumbass named "Rush"--but fuck it, I liked it's unsubtle guts.

Monday, November 5, 2007

Another day of movies, and it's been a couple of days now, I'm falling behind. Let's just jump right in.

First up was the 30 minute short "Dark Night". A simple but tense story of an Israeli patrol that is ambushed. They take refuge in a house, where they find an Arab man and his wife. One of the soldiers is wounded, and needs medical attention. The Arab man's wife is having a baby and needs medical attention. But calling an ambulance would reveal their location and doom them. A taut, tense film with a pretty good metaphor for the greater conflict.

The short played with the feature documentary "Cardboard Squares". Tamar Paikes never knew her father, he died in the Six Days War. She also lost a brother to war, and another brother to a rock-climbing accident. She's never visited any of their graves, nor really dealt with any of the death in her family. She points the camera at herself and her remaining family--especially her mother--to deal with the complex grief she feels. The end result is part therapy and part painfully intimate auto-biography. Her mother provides the title in pointing out that cardboard squares (the frames for slides of her departed family) are no substitute for people.

Next up was a clever low-budget youth-in-trouble thriller from Israel, "Someone to Run With", based on the novel by David Grossman. It starts with a scene of teenage Tamar shaving her head and becoming a street musician. Despite talent at the guitar and a beautiful voice, she makes just enough to survive homeless. Cut 2 months into the future when clumsy Asaf, working for the summer at the animal control shelter, is tasked with finding the owner of an unlicensed dog and delivering a summons. Letting the dog lead the way through its typical haunts, he discovers that it belongs to a girl named Tamar, and that Tamar is possibly in trouble. Their two stories unfolds in parallel, inevitably meeting at the end (okay, not Euclidean parallel lines). In Tamar's story, she's taken in by an evil Fagin-like character named Pesach, who has an army of child street musicians as a cover for his dope-dealing ring. We also learn she's trying to track down a dark, handsome, junkie kid she knows. In Asaf's story, we learn he's clumsy and accident prone, but determined. And as he learns more of Tamar and that she might be in danger, he becomes infatuated and makes it his mission to be her unlikely hero. A good story, well told, that even holds a few surprises at the end.

And finally, the documentary "Six Days: June 1967, The War That Changed the Middle East". I had always known of the Six Days War--how Israel, though badly outnumbered, simultaneously fought Egypt, Syria, and Jordan and defeated them all in six days. How they gained territory--the West Bank, Golan Heights, and all of Jerusalem and basically rewrote the map of the area. But this documentary by IlanZiv goes deep but even-handed into the factors that led to the war, the events in the war, and the repercussions of the war on the whole region. He focuses mainly on the men in charge of the two nations--Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt (portrayed as a populist hero and the greatest hope for a modern, secular, united Arab world in the past century) and Levi Eshkol, the Prime Minister (and initially Defense Minister, before being pushed aside for Moshe Dayan) of Israel (portrayed as a competent, intelligent, but uncharismatic manager who tried at all cost to avoid war). It also squarely puts the blame for the war not on these people, but on their military leadership, Field Marshal Abdel Amer of Egypt (who gave Nasser unrealistic assessments of Egypt's strength) and Moshe Dayan for Israel (who knew from the beginning that despite the numbers, Israel had the tactical advantage in weapons and training, and in fact could not only defend itself but take land). Ultimately not lost in the details of battle is that both leaders ended the war bitterly disappointed and broken--Nasser by the crushing defeat, and Eshkol by the fact that it happened at all. Both died within three years, both from heart attacks. A fascinating, thorough, but concise document of an important week of history.

And that was SJ Jewfest for November 4. Just one more week (Sunday and Wednesday) of the festival left.

Sunday, November 4, 2007

And it's pretty good. Ridley Scott is nearly always awesome. Same for Denzel Washington (Frank Lucas). And if you can look past his personal life drama, Russell Crowe (Richie Roberts) is also a great actor. Many critics have raved about this movie, I'll just say "me too" with a few personal additions. Just random things I noticed during the movie:

First, I have a thing about needles, so watching so many people do heroin give me the heebie-jeebies. Second, despite it's 2 hour, 37 minute running time and it's methodical pace, it still moves well. Third, it feels oddly epic for a story that takes place over just a few years (Frank's heroin empire was based on shipments coming directly from southeast Asia smuggled in on troop transports from the Vietnam war. He was stopped just as the war ended). Fourth, having the heroin processed by naked women was just a bit gratuitous. Sure, it's explained by saying with no clothes they can't steal anything, but still...not that I'm complaining. Fifth, about halfway through I noticed that Russell Crowe was wearing a pendant with a Star of David on it and suddenly realized he's Jewish! This is confirmed with an anti-semitic slur near the end of the movie. And then I thought, 'Wait, he's Jewish and in the beginning he confiscated $987,000 and turned it in rather than keeping it (establishing that he's an honest cop)? Way to break stereotypes!' And finally, spoiler alert: over 3/4 of the NYPD narcotics unit was caught for corruption at the end? That's a hell of a story, and is the B plot of this movie. This was a long movie, and there's a whole second movie to be made of the parts that weren't told.

Saturday, November 3, 2007

Figured I should check in on some general release films instead of just film festivals (although I know there's the Latino Film Fest and the American Indian Film Fest starting now, the San Jose Jewfest continues Sundays and Wednesdays for 2 more weeks, there's an Animation Festival and New Italian Cinema presented by the SF Film Society coming up, etc.), and try to keep the Halloween spirit around a bit longer.

"30 Days of Night" was actually pretty good. In a nutshell, vampires attack Barrow, AK during the middle of winter when the sun doesn't rise for 30 days. There are parts where the story is kinda thin, and parts where it drags on. But the vampires are actually scary, the atmosphere is effective, and I'll even defend Josh Hartnett as perhaps the most underrated young star today. I think he got harnessed with a pretty boy reputation, but he's actually a good actor. What really strikes me is how odd it is to see a vampire movie that only sympathizes with the victims. I hadn't thought about it before, but it's become so cliche to sympathize with the vampire--at least partly. These vampires are just (literally) bloodthirsty monsters who kill and feed (and do so with vigor). And now I'm racking my brains trying to think of the last vampire movie that didn't at least try to make you feel for the vampire a little bit. Vampires had become heroes, not monsters. Well, at least in "30 Days of Night" they're monsters again.

Then I saw a stupid movie that tries waaaay too hard to make you sympathize with the killer. "Saw IV" is just as ridiculous as all the rest. It must be weird being the editor on a Saw movie: 'Here, take this seemingly innocuous line and put it in the beginning. Then put this gory twist that references it at the end. Now choose three or four Rube Goldberg killings from the hundreds we shot, and call it a movie. We'll call you again next year.' I don't even believe the filmmakers cared about the bullshit 'those who don't appreciate life don't deserve it' philosophy until the third movie, and by then I couldn't care if I tried. The whole "Saw" series is a case study in how a twist does not mean clever, and even if they did clever does not mean smart. I suppose I should say something specific to this entry rather than the series as a whole, but if the filmmakers aren't going to do anything new, I'm not either. Right now, I'll only watch the fifth and sixth (they're already greenlit) just to see how Jigsaw becomes a deadlier version of Barry Convex.

Friday, November 2, 2007

Aquarius Records, Arthur Magazine, and the Dead Channels Film Festival just blew my freakin' mind last night, with the help of Spoonbender 1.1.1 and The Valerie Project!

First up was the 21 minute short "Poslednílup" ("The Last Theft") by JiríBarta with soundtrack by Spoonbender 1.1.1. Eerie hand-tinted black and white silent film (oh yeah, old technology but made in 1987) about a thief who breaks into a church to loot it. An early shot of a spider devouring a fly telegraphs where the story is going, but the execution totally dropped my jaw. No spoilers here, I'll just end by saying this is one of those movies where I said "I must own this--now!" Not just "I hope it comes out on DVD some day", but "I must have it!". Fortunately it is out on DVD (in a set of all of Barta's work), because if it wasn't I was just about ready to break into the projectionists booth and steal the film (and, I guess, the projector so I'd have some way to see it).

Next up was the most fucked-up beautiful surreal masterpiece I've ever seen. "Valerie and Her Week of Wonders" with a live score by the 10 piece ensemble "The Valerie Project" (dedicated, it appears, to playing just the soundtrack for this movie). Wow! I loved, loved, loved this movie, even though I don't quite get it (but I've ordered the DVD and can't wait to watch it over and over again until I do understand it). But I'm kinda dreading writing this review. Actually, I'm regretting the traffic I'll get from search engines because of this review. Anyway, here goes...Valerie is a 13 year old girl who undergoes a surreal sexual awakening involving rape, possible incest (with her brother, father, and mother), vampires, and magical earrings that keep her safe. But really, it's not sick or pornographic, it's art, it's fantasy, and it's stunningly beautiful. And to all you perverts who found this post by searching for "13 year old sex rape incest", welcome and I might just be forwarding you IP addresses to the FBI.

This was their Halloween night event. What I actually did was go to the Vortex room and drink a few martinis...then a couple beers...then watched the short "Far Out" by Phil Mucci ("The Listening Dead")--an awesome little piece about a groovy 70's party where everyone is too damn high to realize there's a vampire in their midst. Then I waited for them to get "Psychomania" running. Then I realized that I couldn't finish the movie and still make the BART home. Then I kinda dozed off for a bit. But I did see some undead demon bikers. Then I woke up and BARTed home.

This did leave me in a bit of a quandary, just in terms of official record-keeping. Could I include "Psychomania" on the list of movies (feature-length programs) I've seen this year? Was my total now 392, or was I still at 391? After some soul-searching, I decided I can't in good conscience count it as a movie I've seen this year. But I did add it to my Netflix queue.

best described as "Muppets on crack", with beautiful life-affirming songs like "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist" and "The Internet is for porn", a bunch of puppets sing about post-college malaise, fears, and bad ideas (courtesy of the Bad Idea Bears) along with their human friends Brian, his Japanese fiance Christmas Eve, and landlord Gary Coleman. Hilarious

Anyway, I'm back from Houston. I saw this show just before flying home. I went with my friend (okay, my sister's friend, we'd met once before) Rebecca, pictured here...just look to the right...further to the right...stop staring at the giant fuzzy hooters, she's to the right of them:

By the way, as I was writing this, the earth started shaking, and all I could think of was "Go Quakes!"

So I was expecting this to happen sooner or later, but Film Movement, the DVD-of-the-month club of all festival award-winning movies finally sent me a DVD of a movie I've not only already seen, but liked enough that I already got an import DVD of it. The movie in question is "Adam's Apples", which after a lengthy festival run featured at the 1st annual Wiener Family Film Festival last December and actually made a brief theatrical run in art-house theaters in this area.

So anyway, I have an extra DVD of a movie I already own, so I'm giving it away. Here are the rules: It's a contest of how well you remember every damn thing I've written--or of how well you can use the search box at the top of the page. "Adam's Apples" is a Danish film starring a famous Danish actor whom I'm a big fan of. Just leave a comment in this post stating:

The name of the actor--spelled correctly!

The titles of at least two movies he has starred in--other than "Adam's Apples" which I have seen on the big screen. (Note that it's not enough to look up his filmography on IMDb, you must list two movies I've seenon the big screen, not just two movies he's done.)

The winning entry will get to choose between my old Swedish version of the DVD (with English subtitles, but you need a code-free DVD player) or the Film Movement version, which also contains the short "Clara" from Australia, directed by Van Sowerwine. Ummm...actually I haven't seen the short. Okay, the Film Movement version will probably be unwrapped and viewed once, so I can see that short first.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Someone from a computer on US House of Representatives network has been googling me!

I don't know why the gubmint is interested in me, but now might be as good time as any to say how much I love my crazy atheist Congressman. Yep, the guy who said that Bush sent kids to Iraq to get their heads blown off for his amusement is my Representative! I've voted for him before, and I'll vote for him again. Suck it, sanity!

Okay, I'm a couple of movies behind in my updates, and I'm leaving for Houston tomorrow to attend a friend's wedding, so I'll try to make this quick.

Monday night I went up to the Roxie to see the Egyptian youth comedy/drama "Leisure Time". A surprise box office hit back in Egypt, it features mostly unknown actors (very unknown here, but unknown even back in Egypt) and a 19 year old writer. It follows a meandering slacker group of Cairo University students, who should be studying and planning careers but instead drink, smoke pot, and chase girls. Sort of a multi-threaded Egyptian slacker story with funny and somewhat pathetic characters who are recognizable in any culture. Even tragedies of different scales can't bring them to get their lives on track, and without giving anything away the closing scene is a perfect metaphor for their go-nowhere lives. Also, it features a really kick-ass pimped-out car.

And then Tuesday night I went up to see "Why, O Sea?", a non-linear semi-amateur (as far as the acting) Moroccan film about a group of fishermen. For them, the sea is a magical force--the source of their livelihood but also a constant threat. It's a meandering, non-linear barely narrative meditation on their relation to the sea. The story is difficult to follow at times, and really the closing monologue--unrelated in all but theme from the rest of the movie--is more powerful than anything else that happens in the movie (and director Hakim Belabbes was there and admitted as much). Perhaps the rest of the movie is necessary to put you in the right frame of mind for the monologue from a widow who lost her husband and two out of three sons to the sea, but really I think that monologue alone would make a great 10 minute short.

And that was my time at the Arab Film Festival for 2007. The festival continues through the weekend, and then for the first time ever plays for a half-week in Los Angeles. But I'm out of town starting tomorrow, and I'll miss the rest of it.

Sunday, October 21, 2007

That's the San Jose Jewish Film Festival, as opposed to the SF Jewfest, which I also attended. Three movies last Sunday, all of which were pretty darn good.

First up was the documentary "Blues on the Beach". In 2003 New York documentary filmmaker Jack Baxter went to Israel looking for a story. He thought at first he'd do a story on a terrorist who was going to trial. In the past he had worked closely with Israeli peace activists, and he thought there was a story about how he turned to terrorism instead. But after meeting with families of the victims, Jack decided that this terrorist was not a good hero for his film, and decided to pack it in and go home early. Walking on the beach that night, he heard Blues music and found Mike's Place, a friendly neighborhood bar and restaurant with live Blues on the beach in Tel Aviv. He decided this was his story. Getting help from local filmmaker Joshua Faudem (who is credited as director) and his girlfriend Pavla Fleishcer (who just recently moved with him to Israel from Prague) he sets about documenting the wonderful, friendly, colorful people who work and hang out there. It's a non-political place, an Anglo-friendly place (even if you order in Hebrew, the waiters will answer in English), and a place where Israeli Jews, Arabs, Christians, atheists, foreigners, whatever hang out and enjoy life. Because, I thought to myself, if there's one thing people of all faiths can agree on, it's stealing Black people's music.

Now I'll have to give a major spoiler, but it's really the whole point of the movie. So if you don't like spoilers skip this paragraph and just continue thinking it's a nice documentary about a cool blues bar in Tel Aviv. Okay, everybody gone? Here we go. Suddenly a suicide bomb attack rips through the bar. The movie is suddenly about that attack and the aftermath. I've seen plenty of movies--fictional and documentary--about terrorist attacks, not to mention all the news coverage. I've never seen anything that captures the absolute shocking suddenness and devastation of an attack. One minute everyone is dancing, the next moment everyone is bloody and three people are dead. I've also never seen a movie that lets you fall so much in love with the victims before the attack. I'm still a little broken up about Dom, the waitress who'd moved there just months ago from Paris and died in the attack--and I'd only known her (on film) for about 20 minutes. Or the friendly doorman who apparently prevented a much worse attack by turning the terrorist away and preventing him from detonating in the middle of the crowd (he survived, but was in critical condition for a long time). The filmmakers are by no means immune. They all survive but Baxter is in the hospital for a long time. Joshua and Pavla break up in the stress of the aftermath, and she returns to Prague. But through it all, there's also a spirit of survival, as Mike's Place works to re-open (despite finding new bits of human flesh in the nooks and crannies every few days) and finally does. Security is of course tighter now, but it's still the popular hangout and inclusive escape from the outside world. An excellent movie, but tough to watch.

Next up was the award-winning Israeli film "Aviva, My Love". The title character is your typical busy woman, torn among roles as mother (to her variously troubled children), daughter (to her crazy mother), sister (to her wild sister), hotel chef, and aspiring writer. Writer is what she really wants to be, what she should be, but what she has no time and no self-confidence to be. Her sister finds a great solution, when an established writer friend of hers agrees to help read Aviva's writing. At first it's a good coaching relationship, but eventually ulterior motives creep in. Seems he hasn't written anything in a while, and has lost inspiration. He proposes that he re-writes Aviva's stories, publishes them as his work, and gives her some ambiguous "stories by" credit. It's a story of a woman being pulled in all directions at once, and the compromises she makes for her family and for herself. Assi Levy completely earns the Ophir (Israeli Oscar) she won for her work. This movie also won several more Ophirs, including sharing Best Picture with "Sweet Mud", which plays later in the festival.

And the final movie of the night was "Olga", a biopic on Olga Benário, the German Jewish communist in the 30's who fell in love with the Brazilian communist rebel Luís Carlos Prestes (while serving as his bodyguard on a circuitous trip from Moscow to Rio deJaneiro), became his common-law wife, and helped him lead an unsuccessful revolution attempt. When the revolution failed, President Getúlio Vargas deported her to Germany, where she died Ravensbrück concentration camp, but not after giving birth to a daughter in prison (a daughter whom she never knew was actually adopted by her mother-in-law). This is a sprawling epic biography, 2 hours and 20 minutes long, but it's surprisingly good at maintaining energy. And it wisely lets the politics of communism fall into the background and focuses on the humanitarian side. Communism might be bad, but gassing people is much, much worse (and deporting someone to a country where you know they'll be executed is just as bad).

So after a few Arab Film Festival screenings, I ran over to the Vortex for their Saturday night party/screening. I downed a couple of martinis and settled in to watch James Brolin battle a psychotic demon automobile. I'd never seen it, and from the opening quote by Church of Satan founder Anton LaVey, I was hooked. I could go on about the excellent desert landscape cinematography, the enigmatic nature of the titular devil car, how its restraint in hinting at the carnage makes it better, etc. But really I was there to get drunk, watch people get hit by a car, and laugh at jokes about shoving french horns up your butt so far you'll fart music for a year. And I was not disappointed. That was just what I needed.

3 programs on Saturday, and despite a few technical glitches, I had a good time.

First up was a music program, starting with "Heart and Spirit". It's a documentary about a popular Tunisian group that performs a traditional Islamic chant called Hezb Al-latif. The Hezb Al-latif is traditionally performed to dedicate any new project (a new home, etc.). So when a new recording studio wanted to dedicate their space, they brought in sheik Ahmed Jelman to perform the chant with his group. And hey, why not record it? That recording became incredibly popular, and so did the group. And Ahmed is a fine example of staying grounded while balancing his faith, his art, and his success.

Next up was "Qateral Nada", about a Palestinian Dabka dance group. They live in the only remaining Palestinian neighborhood in West Jerusalem, and while other dance groups compete internationally under the Israeli flag, they are adamant about being Palestinian, not Israeli. I'll just skip over the politics and say they're really good dancers.

And the third movie was "El Tanbura, Capturing a Vanishing Spirit", and unfortunately this one was plagued with technical problems. It's the story of a group reviving traditional music and folklore in Port Said, Egypt. Unfortunately, there were multiple audio glitches and the DVD froze up a few times. I could still follow the story somewhat through the subtitles, but when the real draw is the music, audio glitches are very bad. It was a shame.

Anyway, the next show was the children's program, starting with "Carthage Castaways". It was obviously originally a TV cartoon show, about a group of time-travelling adventurers from Carthage. The movie version was three half-hour episodes crammed awkwardly together, but if you consider it a sampler of the show rather than a 90 minute narrative film, it's okay. Actually, the show looks pretty good, although much heavier on history than would appeal to American kids. But that's not a bad thing. Most Americans wouldn't get a reference to the library of Alexandria, but I really, really wish they would. And of course shows like this could change that.

Then the next technical glitch was that they couldn't get the short "The Magic Crop" to play, so they replaced it with "KemoSabe", the story of an Arab-American kid who really wants to play on the cowboy side in the game of cowboys and Indians (of course, all the ethnic kids are the Indians). It's a touching story with no easy happy ending.

And then the third program of the night, featuring the first ever Lebanese vampire movie. But first the excellent short, "Garbage". It's a story of sexual obsession and frustration, as the hero steals the neighbor woman's garbage and uses it to learn all about her, having a surrogate relationship with her. And for those who think Arabs culture is all conservative, this movie has a man humping a bag of garbage. There's something I haven't seen in an American movie.

Then finally the movie I was most eager to see, "The Last Man" is billed as the first Lebanese vampire movie, and is a very strange vampire movie at that. It opens with a shot of waves crashing against a sea wall shot in a manner that makes Beirut look really Gothic. In fact, the camera work throughout the movie does an excellent job of portraying the city as a mysterious, foreboding force. It then launches into a fragmented, non-linear story of a murderous monster killing people and sucking their blood. Mild-mannered doctor and scuba enthusiast Khalil Shams (Carlos Chahine) is afraid he might be the vampire, as his eyes become increasingly sensitive to sunlight. The movie jumps around in time and place, with no scene flowing directly into the next. The overall effect is jarring and surreal, and over time the visual echoes give a sense of history continuously repeating itself. I can appreciate the movie for these elements, but I fear I'm missing the key knowledge needed--an understanding of what it's like to live in Beirut. I feel this is very much a Beirut film, about Beirut and for residents of Beirut. And as much as I liked this movie, it certainly doesn't make Beirut look inviting enough for me to spend time there to understand the movie better.